Blue Jays Discussion: Off-season Edition 5.0 - The Winter Meeting Chronicles

[cwulf]

what does Attendance / Richest owners matter when our owners are a business and the Jays are just a tiny pimple on their business? a teenie little pimple to keep fans happy. Im so lost by this thought process. We should spend 1 billion/yr and take a loss cause thats how business works.

Let's say average ticket is $40. at 41k * 81 * 40 thats 135 million/yr. ... but ya lets have like 250m teams cause fans who sit at home want one bad!

I agree that the Jays owners are a business, and that it's about the bottom line.

But don't act like the Jays are a novelty acquisition for ***** and giggles. There's a pretty good reason why these communication companies are acquiring IP and sports teams. It's all about being able to supply unique content.

 

[613Leafer]

what does Attendance / Richest owners matter when our owners are a business and the Jays are just a tiny pimple on their business? a teenie little pimple to keep fans happy. Im so lost by this thought process. We should spend 1 billion/yr and take a loss cause thats how business works.

Let's say average ticket is $40. at 41k * 81 * 40 thats 135 million/yr. ... but ya lets have like 250m teams cause fans who sit at home want one bad!

Their revenue in 2015 was 241M.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

Their listed revenue also does not include TV revenue, because the owners of the team are the broadcasters. Prior to Rogers owning them, they used to get 36M/year in broadcasting rights. That would be worth quite a bit more now, especially this past season. The average MLB team makes about ~50M a year in tv revenue.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/

This past season, they averaged over 1M television viewers per game. Which I think would put them above average for TV viewership.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...illion-per-game-for-2016-season/#2a12f8086ecc

Jays average attendance jumped from ~34K to ~41K from 2015 to 2016

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/attend.shtml

They raised ticket prices from 2015 to 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/jays-2016-cost-1.3516705



So I think it's safe to say that with their attendance jumping substantially, their ticket prices going up, and their television revenue not being included in the numbers, their revenue for 2016 was probably somewhere around 350-375M. An extra ~50m for the increased attendance/ticket prices, and an extra ~50-75M to account for the television revenue which should be at minimum average compared to the rest of the league, but likely on the higher end based off of last year.

 

[Bjindaho]

Their revenue in 2015 was 241M.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

Their listed revenue also does not include TV revenue, because the owners of the team are the broadcasters. Prior to Rogers owning them, they used to get 36M/year in broadcasting rights. That would be worth quite a bit more now, especially this past season. The average MLB team makes about ~50M a year in tv revenue.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/estimated-tv-revenues-for-all-30-mlb-teams/

This past season, they averaged over 1M television viewers per game. Which I think would put them above average for TV viewership.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybr...illion-per-game-for-2016-season/#2a12f8086ecc

Jays average attendance jumped from ~34K to ~41K from 2015 to 2016

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TOR/attend.shtml

They raised ticket prices from 2015 to 2016

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/jays-2016-cost-1.3516705



So I think it's safe to say that with their attendance jumping substantially, their ticket prices going up, and their television revenue not being included in the numbers, their revenue for 2016 was probably somewhere around 350-375M. An extra ~50m for the increased attendance/ticket prices, and an extra ~50-75M to account for the television revenue which should be at minimum average compared to the rest of the league, but likely on the higher end based off of last year.

And keep in mind that those numbers are likely in CAD, whereas we pay out all of our salaries in USD

 

[613Leafer]

And keep in mind that those numbers are likely in CAD, whereas we pay out all of our salaries in USD

The list of team revenues is in USD.

 

[zeke]

They have 126m committed, are expected to hit ~140 with arb and pre-arb configurations, and reports have suggested that they still have ~20m left to work with. Is 160m not a good enough number? That would be well within the top 10 payrolls.

last year they were at $159.9m - which ranked 11th, $30m behind the top 5.

Now they don't have to run a top 5 payroll every year but should have no problem doing it in years it makes sense to.

 

[TootooTrain]

The price of the full MLB.tv package has been lowered from $129.99 to $109.99. Single-team packages will cost $84.99.

so your rogers cable is $14/month? ya..

Split two ways with my roommate. Mlbtv is still a discount, but not that far off vs paying for the mlb pass myself. The savings aren't enough of an incentive. But like I said before, all things being equal I'd rather watch on tv.

 

[Eyedea]

last year they were at $159.9m - which ranked 11th, $30m behind the top 5.

Now they don't have to run a top 5 payroll every year but should have no problem doing it in years it makes sense to.

They weren't at 159.9m last year, they were at 125.9m. And it totes makes sense to commit to multiple long term, large money contracts in this year of free agency.

 

[Woodman19]

They weren't at 159.9m last year, they were at 125.9m. And it totes makes sense to commit to multiple long term, large money contracts in this year of free agency.

They did actually make it to a shade under 160. We ate money on Storen and Chavez to move them. I can't remember the rest off the top of my head but my spreadsheet showed what we paid out and factored in money teams ate in deals, like us paying ~$5 mil for Upton last year but only 500k this year.

Edit:
1/3 of Liriano's 13.6
1/3 Feldman's 8

 

[zeke]

They weren't at 159.9m last year, they were at 125.9m. And it totes makes sense to commit to multiple long term, large money contracts in this year of free agency.

spotrac is the new gold standard for mlb salaries and payroll.

http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/2016/

 

[Discoverer]

They did actually make it to a shade under 160. We ate money on Storen and Chavez to move them. I can't remember the rest off the top of my head but my spreadsheet showed what we paid out and factored in money teams ate in deals, like us paying ~$5 mil for Upton last year but only 500k this year.

Edit:
1/3 of Liriano's 13.6
1/3 Feldman's 8

The amount paid in the Storen deal was the difference between the two contracts, which was $350,000 (or, more likely, the pro-rated version of that amount, so something like $120,000).

I get something like $155 million. Either way... it's in that area, and if it's going up a bit they should have plenty of money to spend.

Here's a thought. I'm not saying this remotely close to what they're actually thinking, but it's an interesting scenario and potential strategy: if they've been approved for a salary increase, it may make sense that they're goal this offseason is to make these short-term deals for guys like Morales and Pearce and avoid locking into long-term, big money contracts in order to remain competitive while adding cheap, controllable pieces (in the form of prospects and picks, mainly). Then, when the huge 2018-19 free agency periods come around, they're in a position to replace some of their bigger contracts internally and use the new payroll space to look at maybe signing a premier guy or two (including extending Donaldson).

Again, I'm not saying it's what they're doing, but I think it would be a smart strategy.

 

[Eyedea]

Are we including retained salaries? Because even Spotrac says the Jays spent 138m on their rostered players, and that's including the deadline salary added in Upton/Liriano/Benoit/Feldman. So I'm pretty sure they did in fact spend ~125m at opening day.

Here's a thought. I'm not saying this remotely close to what they're actually thinking, but it's an interesting scenario and potential strategy: if they've been approved for a salary increase, it may make sense that they're goal this offseason is to make these short-term deals for guys like Morales and Pearce and avoid locking into long-term, big money contracts in order to remain competitive while adding cheap, controllable pieces (in the form of prospects and picks, mainly). Then, when the huge 2018-19 free agency periods come around, they're in a position to replace some of their bigger contracts internally and use the new payroll space to look at maybe signing a premier guy or two (including extending Donaldson).

This is exactly my train of thought. Why spend now when you can put yourself in the running to spend when it would actually matter? That is when several impact free agents hit the market and your roster is equipped with several young players that are (hopefully) under some team friendly long-term contracts.

 

[Woodman19]

The amount paid in the Storen deal was the difference between the two contracts, which was $350,000 (or, more likely, the pro-rated version of that amount, so something like $120,000).

I get something like $155 million. Either way... it's in that area, and if it's going up a bit they should have plenty of money to spend.

Here's a thought. I'm not saying this remotely close to what they're actually thinking, but it's an interesting scenario and potential strategy: if they've been approved for a salary increase, it may make sense that they're goal this offseason is to make these short-term deals for guys like Morales and Pearce and avoid locking into long-term, big money contracts in order to remain competitive while adding cheap, controllable pieces (in the form of prospects and picks, mainly). Then, when the huge 2018-19 free agency periods come around, they're in a position to replace some of their bigger contracts internally and use the new payroll space to look at maybe signing a premier guy or two (including extending Donaldson).

Again, I'm not saying it's what they're doing, but I think it would be a smart strategy.

I think they are mimicking the Dodgers rebuild. Spend in the short term to protect the farm and then save money when the new core is under team control.

 

[Discoverer]

I think they are mimicking the Dodgers rebuild. Spend in the short term to protect the farm and then save money when the new core is under team control.

And to get the counter argument that we all know is coming out of the way: yes, we all know that this management group will never spend on a top free agent.

 

[Eyedea]

I think right now it's more important to lock into some contracts and eat up some FA years on Stroman/Sanchez/Travis, maybe Osuna. Assuming you have 60-70m committed for 2019 (before arb/pre-arb costs) there'd obviously be enough to land one big ticket.

 

[frost king]

And to get the counter argument that we all know is coming out of the way: yes, we all know that this management group will never spend on a top free agent.

BINGO! This group will never spend on a big ticket free agent. What more did Encarnacion have to do, and besides this year, Bautista to be treated the way they were by this management group? What messages are they sending Donaldson, with the way they have been treated? If I am Donaldson, I am looking at leaving this organization. If they didn't take care of two of their own, what makes him think, that they are going to take care of him?

 

[theaub]

I would argue that anytime one of the Yankees/Red Sox are down is the time to strike, so holding off for 2018 is extremely risky.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

I think right now it's more important to lock into some contracts and eat up some FA years on Stroman/Sanchez/Travis, maybe Osuna.

Agreed. If it was my management team, priority would be, in order:

1a. Sanchez to the Archer contract
1b. Stroman to the Archer contract
2. Make a decision on Donaldson
3. Travis to the Kipnis contract
4. Make a decision on what Osuna is long-term

 

[Woodman19]

I think right now it's more important to lock into some contracts and eat up some FA years on Stroman/Sanchez/Travis, maybe Osuna. Assuming you have 60-70m committed for 2019 (before arb/pre-arb costs) there'd obviously be enough to land one big ticket.

And that's exactly what the big spending will likely be, retaining core pieces into their 30's.

 

[Eyedea]

BINGO! This group will never spend on a big ticket free agent. What more did Encarnacion have to do, and besides this year, Bautista to be treated the way they were by this management group? What messages are they sending Donaldson, with the way they have been treated? If I am Donaldson, I am looking at leaving this organization. If they didn't take care of two of their own, what makes him think, that they are going to take care of him?

By having unreasonable demands at the start of the season that have still yet to be matched in a UFA environment?

 

[zeke]

I think they are mimicking the Dodgers rebuild. Spend in the short term to protect the farm and then save money when the new core is under team control.

I think these are meaningless distinctions between long term and short term.

Spending money always protects the farm, long and short term.


And prioritizing the future core when we just went to back to back ALCS seems backwards to me.

I mean we hope the future core one day gets to back to back ALCS. if we're lucky.

 

[Discoverer]

I would argue that anytime one of the Yankees/Red Sox are down is the time to strike, so holding off for 2018 is extremely risky.

Unless the idea is to put themselves into a position to be able to compete financially with the Yankees/Red Sox.

 

[Discoverer]

Agreed. If it was my management team, priority would be, in order:

1a. Sanchez to the Archer contract
1b. Stroman to the Archer contract
2. Make a decision on Donaldson
3. Travis to the Kipnis contract
4. Make a decision on what Osuna is long-term

I was going to comment on those, too: if some of the current spending goes to extending the young stars, I'm on board.

Travis is the only one that's really tough for me because of the injury history. Still, if that keeps the cost of an extension down, then it's a worthwhile risk to take.

 

[Eyedea]

I think these are meaningless distinctions between long term and short term.

Spending money always protects the farm, long and short term.

And prioritizing the future core when we just went to back to back ALCS seems backwards to me.

I mean we hope the future core one day gets to back to back ALCS. if we're lucky.

Yes, like buying Gurriel and spending on players that are not attached to a comp pick.

 

[Discoverer]

I think these are meaningless distinctions between long term and short term.

Spending money always protects the farm, long and short term.


And prioritizing the future core when we just went to back to back ALCS seems backwards to me.

I mean we hope the future core one day gets to back to back ALCS. if we're lucky.

Spending money on a long-term contract inhibits the ability to spend in the future though, which is what this discussion is mostly about.

 

[Walshy7]

Agreed. If it was my management team, priority would be, in order:

1a. Sanchez to the Archer contract
1b. Stroman to the Archer contract
2. Make a decision on Donaldson
3. Travis to the Kipnis contract
4. Make a decision on what Osuna is long-term

what in your opinion would Donaldson get in a trade? I don't want to do it but if they do what would we be looking at